By Julie Anne Mainville and James Boothroyd, Special to the Vancouver Sun September 11, 2014

If what we hear is true, as two parents with schoolchildren — one of us carrying a picket, and keen to get back to her Richmond classroom — Premier Christy Clark’s and Minister of Education Peter Fassbender’s recent comments are only adding more toxic suspended solids to the muddy waters of the education dispute, to use a Mount Polley metaphor.

But the way forward is clear, as we and many of our fellow parents see it. The government needs to be honest and mind its ABCDs: Abide By the Court Decisions on class size and composition.

The premier and minister repeatedly say the teacher’s “unrealistic” wage demands are the main stumbling block. This is unfair and muddies the matter, as shown by the unanimity of teachers about submitting to binding arbitration. More on wages in a moment.

This dispute is mainly about class size and class composition. It reaches back to the 1990s, when teachers correctly agreed these issues would be their bargaining priorities. Why? Because classrooms had become increasingly complex as students were shown to have multiple learning needs and the number of new English-language learners increased. Teachers, therefore, pushed for more resource teachers and support workers and smaller class-sizes. They also prioritized these needs over salary increases.

Critical language about these much needed improvements, however, was stripped out of the contract in 2002 by then minister of education Clark.

This was illegal, as we now know. The teachers’ federation took the B.C. Liberal government to court over this twice, winning both times, most recently in February. The judge ruled one cannot simply remove language from a contract that has been reached through fair bargaining by the employer and employees.

Clark’s government, however, is pressing ahead with another appeal. This is to be heard in October, but it will be months, and many millions of our dollars spent, before the court rules again. In the meantime, teachers have reduced their original request of $225 million to $175 million per year, for a fund that would temporarily address the problems related to class size and composition. To put this in context, the language and limits governing class size and composition in the ill-fated 2002 contract cost $275 million per year. Now, however, the government is refusing to budge, offering the status quo, $75 million, the sort of underfunding that over the last 12 years has dragged our wealthy province into the bottom ranks for per-pupil funding in Canada.

This — not wages — is the main sticking point in the dispute.

The government has also “saved” money by eliminating labels, for students with special needs that entitled them to additional support. A student then labelled as gifted or learning-disabled (with Aspergers, dyslexia, depression, FAS, etc.) would receive more support. Eliminating labels has allowed the province to withdraw this support for certain students.

There are over 16,000 classrooms in B.C. today with four or more special-needs students, and over 3,800 with seven or more. To give but one recent example, a Grade 8 science teacher in Richmond had 31 students, of whom 21 had special needs, including giftedness, learning disabilities, behaviour challenges, and English-language-learning needs. How teachable would this group be even for the most talented teacher? And how can our children thrive in such a classroom?

What about wages? Clark says teachers need to be realistic. The reality, however, is that the BCTF is asking for an eight-per-cent increase over five years, 1.6-per-cent per year (less than the rate of inflation). Given that B.C. teachers have had no increase since 2011, even with such a salary hike, they would still rank among the lowest paid teachers in Canada. Is this unreasonable?

Remember B.C.’s economy is now generating a budget surplus. Can our “have” province not afford to fund its education system at the level of even “have-not” provinces? What teachers are asking for, after all, amounts to $3 per student, per day. Is this unrealistic?

Most British Columbians would disagree. Rather than throw $40 per day — $60 million per week — at parents to prolong this costly, divisive dispute. and throw even more good money after bad by appealing successive Supreme Court decisions on class-size and composition, Clark would do well to agree to binding arbitration and mind her ABCDs: Abide By the Court Decisions, so our children can get back to properly funded classrooms.

Julie Anne Mainville and James Boothroyd are members of Protect Public Education Now, an ad hoc parents group.